Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

X800 Series does not support Win9X ?

Tags:
  • Graphics Cards
  • Support
  • ATI
  • Windows XP
  • Graphics
Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
May 27, 2004 11:54:50 AM

Just know my pre-ordered ATI X800 Pro card may not support Win9x OS. I browse thru ATI web and found that the OS the card supported be merely Win2K/XP only. This puzzles me as I don't like to spend one more bucks on the Windows.
Any help?

More about : x800 series support win9x

May 27, 2004 12:07:16 PM

Get a pirated copy of WinXP... Oups! I should not suggest this here. :smile:

It's amazing that in 2004 someone who wants to buy a X800 still have Win9x. This OS is so old/unstable. By the way, many new stuff (the new Intel socket for example) will not support it anymore. So, it's time to upgrade I think.

If you buy an X800, you have the hardwaretu run Win2000/XP very well, I know you don't want to give money to MS, and if you don't want to. Get a copy of WinXP and if you want to be "fully legit", use your Windows 2000/XP license at home. It's something that can be done. I know lot of people that do this.

--
What's the <b><font color=green>AMD Mobile Athlon 64</font color=green></b> overclocking potential? <b>It's huge!</b>
May 27, 2004 12:18:49 PM

My point is : it's a waste of money to spend on the OS especially when the only function of it is a platform for the PC games (in my situation).
It's a matter of customer care though I (being the customer) recklessly ignore the manual posted on the web.
I do think it also a matter of driver and ATI wish to jump over it !!!
Related resources
May 27, 2004 12:48:26 PM

Microsoft Win9x support article : http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=fh;[LN];LifeAn1
Microsoft decided to extend Win9x support until 2006.

I will not blame any company to not support this OS anymore, because it's old and usually people that buy new hardware are running Win2000/XP.

I will not argue that Win9x can't get the job done! It can do it pretty well, but I strongly recommend you an upgrade. If you don't want to pay, there is tons of way to not pay for a MS license. And there is legit way to do it. As I stated in my last post, using the license you use at work it's not a problem.

At home, I have a a laptop and a desktop. My laptop came with a Windows XP license. So I "use" it on my 2 PC, I know it's not legal, but I don't feel bad at all doing this. I paid the license one and I pay for the games I play more than a few days...

But everyone have a different opinion about this issue.

By the way, if ATI put Win2000/XP in their minimum requirements for the X800, you can't blame them and you can't say you didn't knew it.

--
What's the <b><font color=green>AMD Mobile Athlon 64</font color=green></b> overclocking potential? <b>It's huge!</b>
May 27, 2004 2:58:20 PM

i agree, Win9x computers are generally not fast enough to use a x800pro , so why spend precious time writing drivers for it.



but, even if the % of customers using win9x/ME is as low as 15% , thats a large amount to stop supporting, and i cant see it being any lower than that. not really impressed by this to say the least

-------
<A HREF="http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/you.html" target="_new">please dont click here! </A>
<A HREF="http://www.subhi.com/keyboard.jpg" target="_new">This is you, interweb junky</A>
a b U Graphics card
May 27, 2004 3:45:44 PM

Actually the main issue is support. Since MS initially dropped support for Win98x (95 would be useless), ATI didn't plan on supporting it either as it's extra time/effort/expense for something that is slowly fading into oblivion in the cutting edge marketplace.

MS may have changed their poisition on support, but really as has been pointed out a 98 platform isn't really a forward looking platform so like so many other things out there the requirement for 2k or XP is realistic. I expect to see games say the very same thing in a while too. Modern games already list SE as a requirement, and don't mention W95 at all. The same will happen with all of 98(including SE). It's really not surprising, the memory limitations of 98 alone make it restricitve.


- You need a licence to buy a gun, but they'll sell anyone a stamp <i>(or internet account)</i> ! - <font color=green>RED </font color=green> <font color=red> GREEN</font color=red> GA to SK :evil: 
May 27, 2004 3:58:48 PM

Agreed.

Yeah, 98 has pretty bad memory management as it is, and it simply doesn't have a good memory structure like NT. Expect it to become even harder once 512MB cards or games come out, ya know? IIRC 512MB was already stepping over the stability of the memory management in 98.

I personally think it's a good idea ATi is moving forward. Even if 15% of the population uses 98, the majority of that amount will not upgrade to such a card on their system as it is arguably a cheap one or outdated one. There is no computer in any OEM PC out there IIRC, that now won't ship with XP anyways. Forget ME too!
BTW I personally wonder if just because Win95 is not listen in a game's reqs, it wouldn't work. 95 and 98 are pretty damn similar really.

--
<i>Ede</i>
<A HREF="http://www.lochel.com/THGC/album.php" target="_new"><font color=blue><b>More updates and added sites as over <font color=red>62</font color=red> no-lifers have their pics up on THGC's Photo Album! </b></font color=blue></A> :lol: 
May 27, 2004 6:24:29 PM

Time to upgrade your old OS.
May 27, 2004 6:37:35 PM

Aside from the politics, XP is really MUCH more stable than 95/98/98se/Me will ever hope to be.

If you spend any time at all in front of a computer screen, throw 98 away and never look back. I promise you will not regret it.

________________
<b>Radeon <font color=red>9700 PRO</b></font color=red> <i>(o/c 329/337)</i>
<b>AthlonXP <font color=red>~2750+</b></font color=red> <i>(2400+ @ 2208 Mhz)</i>
<b>3dMark03: <font color=red>4,876</b>
May 27, 2004 7:39:54 PM

I am still wondering how some can claim they configured and tweaked 98 so much that it never crashes.

What are you running anyways, Minesweeper?!

--
<i>Ede</i>
<A HREF="http://www.lochel.com/THGC/album.php" target="_new"><font color=blue><b>More updates and added sites as over <font color=red>62</font color=red> no-lifers have their pics up on THGC's Photo Album! </b></font color=blue></A> :lol: 
May 27, 2004 7:47:20 PM

It's easy to keep 98 from crashing: just elect to manually reboot every 2 minutes.

________________
<b>Radeon <font color=red>9700 PRO</b></font color=red> <i>(o/c 329/337)</i>
<b>AthlonXP <font color=red>~2750+</b></font color=red> <i>(2400+ @ 2208 Mhz)</i>
<b>3dMark03: <font color=red>4,876</b>
a b U Graphics card
May 27, 2004 8:59:47 PM

There are ram recovery programs that help, <b>ALOT</b>!

But still I would crash at least 1 every week or two, maybe three.

We do have some computers here at work that run 24/7 365 on Win98, but they are terminal emulators for the deaf and hard of hearing, not really resource hogs (heck they could run on a 286 I bet).

But for day to day normal people's use, 98 is very long in the tooth.

Get an OEM Upgrade version of home (you can upgrade from 98SE [not regular 98, the b@stUrds!]), it should be relatively cheap. Heck I can get XP pro at the Univ for just over $100CDN for the educational version.


- You need a licence to buy a gun, but they'll sell anyone a stamp <i>(or internet account)</i> ! - <font color=green>RED </font color=green> <font color=red> GREEN</font color=red> GA to SK :evil: 
a b U Graphics card
May 27, 2004 11:21:03 PM

98SE isn't unstable, it just took a bad rap because of your unstable hardware.

<font color=blue>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to a hero as big as Crashman!</font color=blue>
<font color=red>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to an ego as large as Crashman's!</font color=red>
a b U Graphics card
May 27, 2004 11:24:42 PM

Lies, you can't have better than 100% stability, which is what I got with 98SE. Every day I use XP I regret the fact that 98SE wasn't properly supported by my drivers and programs.

<font color=blue>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to a hero as big as Crashman!</font color=blue>
<font color=red>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to an ego as large as Crashman's!</font color=red>
May 27, 2004 11:35:10 PM

win 98se is a very stable system, it was win ME that gave it a bad rap.

The only reason I switched to xp pro was because of the driver support, wasn't able to run VS.NET 2003 with 98
May 27, 2004 11:37:31 PM

We're back on this topic again!?! ARG!

Anyone else besides crash get good stability with 98se?

Upgrading to 2K or XP is free if you want to download it, very cheap if you're a student, and cheap if you buy it OEM with a paperclip.

<font color=blue>________________________</font color=blue>
<font color=red>You are all going to go to Hell!
May 28, 2004 12:03:45 AM

I had 100% stability with win98se for years between the crashes, which happened every couple of days or so.

He that but looketh on a plate of ham and eggs to lust after it, hath already committed breakfast with it in his heart. -C.S. Lewis
May 28, 2004 12:07:48 AM

I dunno man, my dad's 750MHZ P3 laptop uses good Intel hardware with an ATi Rage mobility, and Crystal Sound Fusion sound. It's just so bad at resource management, that when using Adobe Illustrator, Photoshop and Flash at the same time, it's gone. I get white dialog boxes, ya know, the kind that appear once the system is seriously low on resources and HAS to terminate programs.

--
<i>Ede</i>
<A HREF="http://www.lochel.com/THGC/album.php" target="_new"><font color=blue><b>More updates and added sites as over <font color=red>62</font color=red> no-lifers have their pics up on THGC's Photo Album! </b></font color=blue></A> :lol: 
May 28, 2004 12:11:01 AM

Were you playing intensive 16-bit games from Win 3.1 by any chance? :tongue:

--
<i>Ede</i>
<A HREF="http://www.lochel.com/THGC/album.php" target="_new"><font color=blue><b>More updates and added sites as over <font color=red>62</font color=red> no-lifers have their pics up on THGC's Photo Album! </b></font color=blue></A> :lol: 
a b U Graphics card
May 28, 2004 12:24:49 AM

Yeh, I did have a little problem, after around 2.5 months of running my brute force, the system was running so slow I decided to reboot it.

<font color=blue>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to a hero as big as Crashman!</font color=blue>
<font color=red>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to an ego as large as Crashman's!</font color=red>
May 28, 2004 1:08:59 AM

i think all ur reasons make sense but IMO the main reason ATi is going to stop supporting win 9x is because of

PCI-EX
there's gonna be a X800 PCI-EX version, i'll be damned if Windows 98 supports PCI-EX. even if it did, it would suck so bad = = like USB 2.0 lolz

there's a solution to everything
ur solution starts with the letter B and ends with the letter T

*hint hint*

:D 

RIP Block Heater....HELLO P4~~~~~
120% nVidia Fanboy+119% Money Fanboy
GeForce 6800 Ultra--> The Way we thought FX 5800Ultra is meant to be played
THGC's resident Asian and nVboy :D 
May 28, 2004 3:52:07 AM

Its not that it didn't crash, compared to 95 it was god send lol. But with xp's gapping holes, security was really more of the issue
May 28, 2004 11:38:40 AM

Quote:
98SE isn't unstable, it just took a bad rap because of your unstable hardware.


no, because of its inability to prevent itself from crashing because of hardware exceptions (wich are common, wich are well defined, and every ordinary os can handle them).

as well its inability to wrap each application, and each driver, into a logical unit 100% removable at runtime (yes, gpu drivers are un-install-and-installable at runtime without reboot! not the ati/nvidia ones, but others do).

if an application has a bug (very common), and tries to access wrong memory, it can do that, in DOS apps (win9x is a dosapp). sometimes the memory is marked reserved, in some way, and it results in an ordinary app crash, or a bluescreen. sometimes it doesnt, and just writes onto it. i accidentally have written onto the icon-buffer of the os once (i targeted the screen-buffer but i failed:D ). result was, no os-icons, and some other skin-parts (winamp, too), had their original icons, instead, they had my colourful garbage..

after some time, i got a bluescreen of death, and [-peep-] my open files with it (means not not having saved the latest stuff. means [-peep-] THEM. half of my code went byebye). looks like i've not only hit the icons, but some serious os-code, too..

no, and i repeat, NO os running on top of DOS real mode, can EVER, EVER considered stable or save. not in any form.

unstable hw [-peep-] every os. take out the hd, or some ram, and look how perfectly the linux server still runs:D  (hint: it won't:D )

"take a look around" - limp bizkit

www.google.com
May 28, 2004 11:42:11 AM

98 Rarely crashed on me, I just had to make sure none of my family made any mistakes. Little things like opening the CD-ROM whilst it was being accessed would seriously screw it up. Now Im on 2000 Pro, I feel a lot more secure, and think to myself that if it does crash, its not going to do any serious damage.

<A HREF="http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=7454540" target="_new">Yay, I Finally broke the 12k barrier!!</A>
May 28, 2004 12:17:59 PM

Quote:
98SE isn't unstable, it just took a bad rap because of your unstable hardware.

So an Asus P3V4X, a GeForce 256 and a Sound Blaster Live! were unstable hardware? I don't think so.


--
What's the <b><font color=green>AMD Mobile Athlon 64</font color=green></b> overclocking potential? <b>It's huge!</b>
May 28, 2004 3:43:36 PM

Hoooobooy, shouldn't have mentioned SB Live! and a VIA chipset mobo, especially with 133A, and Win98 in this conversation, dude... :eek: 

--
<i>Ede</i>
<A HREF="http://www.lochel.com/THGC/album.php" target="_new"><font color=blue><b>More updates and added sites as over <font color=red>62</font color=red> no-lifers have their pics up on THGC's Photo Album! </b></font color=blue></A> :lol:  <P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by Eden on 05/28/04 11:44 AM.</EM></FONT></P>
May 28, 2004 3:54:45 PM

Wow! Are you telling that my old P3/700 with Win98 was crashing because of SB Live! and VIA incompatibility issue? :smile:

At the end of is life, my P3/700 + P3V4X was running with an incredible stability under WinXP, of course, I had 512Megs of ram to do so! Good old days... Can you belive that I sold this PC more than 200$US 2 months ago! This was a good deal! And it the same week I bought a DELL Latitude C840 for 350$US (P4M@1.4GHz/256MegsRAM/20GigsHD/GeForceGO). This was a great week!

--
What's the <b><font color=green>AMD Mobile Athlon 64</font color=green></b> overclocking potential? <b>It's huge!</b>
a b U Graphics card
May 28, 2004 5:39:41 PM

LMAO, yes, the P3V4X was garbage. The only problems I had with 9x were memory leaks, I added a memory manager. I could do typical office and entertainment task for over a week between reboots and if I added video editing to the list of task, 3 days. Most users shut their computers off at night.

SB Live caused stability problems too!

<font color=blue>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to a hero as big as Crashman!</font color=blue>
<font color=red>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to an ego as large as Crashman's!</font color=red>
a b U Graphics card
May 28, 2004 5:41:49 PM

WinXP handles exception errors better. My solution was to minimize exception errors, rather than use an OS that self-recovers from them.

<font color=blue>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to a hero as big as Crashman!</font color=blue>
<font color=red>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to an ego as large as Crashman's!</font color=red>
a b U Graphics card
May 28, 2004 5:43:32 PM

Oh, adding XP to make hardware stable is like saying "My car keeps bouncing off guard rails, rather than buy a car that drives straight I think I'll just add rollers to the side".

<font color=blue>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to a hero as big as Crashman!</font color=blue>
<font color=red>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to an ego as large as Crashman's!</font color=red>
a b U Graphics card
May 28, 2004 5:54:15 PM

It worked fine for me, for many many years. P2B-F, P3B-F, 6BA+III, SQ2500, PIII700E@933, PIII 1000EB, Celeron 1100@1400 on Slot-T, Adaptec 2940U, Radeon DDR, and various less important parts. I'd rather have a car that stays in the driving lanes than one that has wheels on the sides for sliding off the guard rails.

<font color=blue>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to a hero as big as Crashman!</font color=blue>
<font color=red>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to an ego as large as Crashman's!</font color=red>
May 28, 2004 6:31:40 PM

I certainly don't deny that 98SE was great. It was. What I do say is that for me, XP is better.

However, I hope that we can all agree that ME was utter garbage.

<font color=red> If you design software that is fool-proof, only a fool will want to use it. </font color=red>
a b U Graphics card
May 28, 2004 9:03:14 PM

Not only was ME problematic for users, but for MS as well, they couldn't sell enough coppies of the upgrade to make it profitable as far as I can remember. As for the millions of new copies they sold to OEM's, they could have just as easily sold those OEM's 98SE at the same price.

<font color=blue>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to a hero as big as Crashman!</font color=blue>
<font color=red>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to an ego as large as Crashman's!</font color=red>
May 29, 2004 3:18:15 AM

I'm glad I didn't buy ME. Stayed with 98SE until I upgraded to 2000Pro.
!